Analyst Forecasts and the Cross Section of European Stock Returns

We examine revisions to earnings forecasts by equity analysts and their role in predicting stock returns. We provide evidence that European stocks with net upward revised forecasts earn higher future returns than otherwise similar stocks. This effect is not concentrated in small stocks, stocks with low analyst coverage, or stocks with low book‐to‐market ratios. We find differences in the return continuation patterns of stocks with upward versus downward revisions, namely, bad news travels quickly, but good news travels slowly. This result is consistent with investors' attaching greater significance to poor earnings forecasts, but adopting a wait‐and‐see approach to good news.     

Sell on the news: Differences of opinion,short-sales constraints,and returns around earnings announcements

Miller [1977. Risk, uncertainty, and divergence of opinion. Journal of Finance 32, 1151–1168] hypothesizes that prices of stocks subject to high differences of opinion and short-sales constraints are biased upward. We expect earnings announcements to reduce differences of opinion among investors, and consequently, these announcements should reduce overvaluation. Using five distinct proxies for differences of opinion, we find that high differences of opinion stocks earn significantly lower returns around earnings announcements than low differences of opinion stocks. In addition, the returns on high differences of opinion stocks are more negative within the subsample of stocks that are most difficult for investors to sell short. These results are robust when we control for the size effect and the market-to-book effect and when we examine alternative explanations such as financial leverage, earnings announcement premium, post-earnings announcement drift, return momentum, and potential biases in analysts’ forecasts. Also consistent with Miller's theory, we find that stocks subject to high differences of opinion and more binding short-sales constraints have a price run-up just prior to earnings announcements that is followed by an even larger decline after the announcements.     

Inflation,earnings forecasts,and post-earnings announcement drift

We examine whether financial analysts fully incorporate expected inflation in their earnings forecasts for individual stocks. We find that expected inflation proxies, such as lagged inflation and inflation forecasts from the Michigan Survey of Consumers, predict the future earnings change of a portfolio long in high inflation exposure firms and short in low or negative inflation exposure firms, but analysts do not fully adjust for this relation. Analysts’ earnings forecast errors can be predicted using expected inflation proxies, and these systematic forecast errors are related to future stock returns. Overall, our evidence is consistent with the Chordia and Shivakumar (J Account Res 43(4):521–556, 2005) hypothesis that the post-earnings announcement drift is related to investor underestimation of the impact of expected inflation on future earnings change.     

A Test of the Errors–in–Expectations Explanation of the Value/Glamour Stock Returns Performance: Evidence from Analysts' Forecasts

Several empirical studies show that investment strategies that favor the purchase of stocks with low prices relative to conventional measures of value yield higher returns. Some of these studies imply that investors are too optimistic about (glamour) stocks that have had good performance in the recent past and too pessimistic about (value) stocks that have performed poorly. We examine whether investors systematically overestimate (underestimate) the future earnings performance of glamour (value) stocks over the 1976 to 1997 period. Our results fail to support the extrapolation hypothesis that posits that the superior performance of value stocks is because investors make systematic errors in predicting future growth in earnings of out–of–favor stocks.     

Diagnostic Expectations and Stock Returns

We revisit La Porta's finding that returns on stocks with the most optimistic analyst long‐term earnings growth forecasts are lower than those on stocks with the most pessimistic forecasts. We document the joint dynamics of fundamentals, expectations, and returns of these portfolios, and explain the facts using a model of belief formation based on the representativeness heuristic. Analysts forecast fundamentals from observed earnings growth, but overreact to news by exaggerating the probability of states that have become more likely. We find support for the model's predictions. A quantitative estimation of the model accounts for the key patterns in the data.     

Expected earnings growth and portfolio performance

We form portfolios based on forecasted growth rates in earnings and apply stochastic dominance tests. Low expected-growth rate portfolios dominate high expected-growth rate portfolios. This suggests that the superior return performance of value stocks is not due to omitted risk factors but is a consequence of investors making systematic errors in forming earnings expectations. Fama and French (1992) extend and refine the results of previous studies that report relationships between stock returns and firm characteristics (e.g., Banz (1981), firm size; Rosenberg et al. (1985), book value to market value; Basu (1983) and Jaffe et al. (1989), earnings-to-price ratio; and Keim (1985), dividend yield).     

Differences of Opinion and the Cross Section of Stock Returns

We provide evidence that stocks with higher dispersion in analysts' earnings forecasts earn lower future returns than otherwise similar stocks. This effect is most pronounced in small stocks and stocks that have performed poorly over the past year. Interpreting dispersion in analysts' forecasts as a proxy for differences in opinion about a stock, we show that this evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that prices will reflect the optimistic view whenever investors with the lowest valuations do not trade. By contrast, our evidence is inconsistent with a view that dispersion in analysts' forecasts proxies for risk.     

The disparity between long-term and short-term forecasted earnings growth

We find the disparity between long-term and short-term analyst forecasted earnings growth is a robust predictor of future returns and long-term analyst forecast errors. After adjusting for industry characteristics, stocks whose long-term earnings growth forecasts are far above or far below their implied short-term forecasts for earnings growth have negative and positive subsequent risk-adjusted returns along with downward and upward revisions in long-term forecasted earnings growth, respectively. Additional results indicate that investor inattention toward firm-level changes in long-term earnings growth is responsible for these risk-adjusted returns.     

Effects of winsorization: The cases of forecasting non‐GAAP and GAAP earnings

This study examines how the winsorization procedure affects the performance of regression‐based earnings forecasting models. I find that the impact is multifaceted and depends principally on three factors: the level of data errors in the tails, the characteristics of firms affected by the process, and the use of scaling. For a non‐GAAP earnings yield specification, where data input errors exist, winsorization changes the information set in a non‐systematic way and helps to improve the performance of regression‐based forecasts, especially when the least squares estimator is employed. However, for a non‐GAAP earnings per share specification, with fewer data input errors found in the tails of the distribution, winsorization has a particularly strong effect on very large companies, lowering the economic value of earnings predictions. I observe similar results for corresponding GAAP earnings specifications. Robust estimators, such as least absolute deviation, high breakdown‐point and Theil‐Sen, appear to be a more effective solution than winsorization. Their earnings forecasts consistently yield significant positive abnormal returns across non‐GAAP and GAAP earnings specifications.     

Stakeholder relations and stock returns: On errors in investors' expectations and learning

A significant number of institutional investors publicly state the belief that corporate stakeholder relations are associated with firm value in a manner that the financial market fails to understand. We investigate whether stakeholder information predicted risk-adjusted returns due to errors in investors' expectations and ultimately ceased to do so as attention for such information increased. We build a stakeholder-relations index (SI) for a wide range of U.S. firms over the period 1992–2009 and provide evidence that the SI explained errors in investors' expectations about firms' future earnings. The SI was positively associated with long-term risk-adjusted returns, earnings announcement returns, and errors in analysts' earnings forecasts over the period 1992–2004. However, as attention for stakeholder issues became more widespread, subsequently, these relationships diminished considerably. The results are consistent with the idea that increased investor attention for stakeholder issues eventually eliminates mispricing.     

Value relevance of analyst earnings forecasts in emerging markets

Even though research in accounting and finance has extensively examined the role of financial analysts in developed economies, this issue has not been thoroughly examined in an emerging market setting. In this paper, I examine whether, following a market opening, analyst forecast accuracy and the market's reliance on analyst forecasts increase with time. Accuracy is expected to increase over time as analysts exert more effort and gain valuable forecasting experience. Results indicate that time is positively related to analyst forecast accuracy after controlling for a number of other firm and country characteristics. Second, I posit that time should also be related to the market's propensity to use analyst forecasts to form earnings expectations. As markets open and investors become more sophisticated, the reliance on analyst forecasts should also increase. Results are consistent with this expectation. In particular, I find that in the first sub-period earnings expectations based on random walk exhibit greater relative information content than earnings expectations based on analyst forecasts. This pattern is reversed in the third sub-period where analyst forecast errors better explain returns. Incremental information content tests produce similar results. Future research should further investigate the relation between financial analysts and other important market characteristics in emerging economies.     

Earnings Announcements and Systematic Risk

Firms scheduled to report earnings earn an annualized abnormal return of 9.9%. We propose a risk‐based explanation for this phenomenon, whereby investors use announcements to revise their expectations for nonannouncing firms, but can only do so imperfectly. Consequently, the covariance between firm‐specific and market cash flow news spikes around announcements, making announcers especially risky. Consistent with our hypothesis, announcer returns forecast aggregate earnings. The announcement premium is persistent across stocks, and early (late) announcers earn higher (lower) returns. Nonannouncers' response to announcements is consistent with our model, both over time and across firms. Finally, exposure to announcement risk is priced.     

Earnings and Expected Returns

The aggregate dividend payout ratio forecasts excess returns on both stocks and corporate bonds in postwar U.S. data. High dividends forecast high returns. High earnings forecast low returns. The correlation of earnings with business conditions gives them predictive power for returns; they contain information about future returns that is not captured by other variables. Dividends and earnings contribute substantial explanatory power at short horizons. For forecasting long-horizon returns, however, only (scaled) stock prices matter. Forecasts of low long-horizon stock returns in the mid-1990s are caused not by earnings or dividends, but by high stock prices.     

Evidence That Management Earnings Forecasts Do Not Fully Incorporate Information in Prior Forecast Errors

Abstract:  This paper investigates whether managers fully incorporate the implications of their prior earnings forecast errors into their future earnings forecasts and, if not, whether this behavior is related to the post-earnings announcement drift. I find a positive association in consecutive management forecast errors, suggesting that managers underestimate the future implications of past earnings information when forecasting earnings. I also find that managers underestimate the information in their prior forecast errors to a greater extent when they make earnings forecasts with a longer horizon. Finally, I find that, similar to managers, the market also underreacts to earnings information in management forecast errors, which leads to predictable stock returns following earnings announcements.     

ABNORMAL RETURNS AND ANALYSTS' EARNINGS FORECAST REVISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PUBLICATION OF “STOCK HIGHLIGHTS” BY VALUE LINE INVESTMENT SURVEY

We examine the reaction of stocks and the response of financial analysts' earnings forecasts to securities recommended as “Stock Highlights” by Value Line Investment Survey. Significant abnormal returns appear around the publication of stock highlights. Stock price responses are relatively efficient and permanent. Using earnings expectation data provided by the Institutional Brokers Estimate System, we find analysts raise their forecasts significantly following Value Line recommendations. Near-term forecast revisions are significantly related to stock returns at the time of the recommendations. Thus, an explanation for Value Line's security recommendation success is its ability to generate firm-specific earnings information.     

Implied cost of capital investment strategies: evidence from international stock markets

Investors can generate excess returns by implementing trading strategies based on publicly available equity analyst forecasts. This paper captures the information provided by analysts by the implied cost of capital (ICC), the internal rate of return that equates a firm’s share price to the present value of analysts’ earnings forecasts. We find that U.S. stocks with a high ICC outperform low ICC stocks on average by 6.0 % per year. This spread is significant when controlling the investment returns for their risk exposure as proxied by standard pricing models. Further analysis across the world’s largest equity markets validates these results.     

Does Meeting Earnings Expectations Matter? Evidence from Analyst Forecast Revisions and Share Prices

This paper investigates whether the market rewards firms meeting current period earnings expectations, and whether any such reward reflects the implications of meeting expectations in the current period for future earnings or reflects a distinct market premium. We document that abnormal annual returns are significantly greater for firms meeting expectations, controlling for the information in the current year's earnings. We then test whether firms meeting expectations experience higher returns simply because their expected future earnings are also higher. We find firms meeting expectations have significantly higher earnings forecasts and realized earnings than firms that do not. We find that controlling for these higher future earnings, firms meeting expectations in one or two years do not receive a greater valuation than their fundamentals would suggest. We find, however, that the market assigns a higher value to firms that meet expectations consistently, controlling for an estimate of the firm's fundamental value.     

Earnings Surprises,Growth Expectations,and Stock Returns or Don't Let an Earnings Torpedo Sink Your Portfolio

We provide new evidence that the inferior returns to growth stocks relative to value stocks are the result of expectational errors about future earnings performance. Our evidence demonstrates that growth stocks exhibit an asymmetric response to earnings surprises. We show that while growth stocks are at least as likely to announce negative earnings surprises as positive earnings surprises, they exhibit an asymmetrically large negative price response to negative earnings surprises. After controlling for this asymmetric price response, we find no remaining evidence of a return differential between growth and value stocks. We conclude that the inferior return to growth stocks is attributable to overoptimistic expectational errors that are corrected through subsequent negative earnings surprises.     

Cashflow risk,systematic earnings revisions,and the cross-section of stock returns

The returns of stocks are partially driven by changes in their expected cashflow. Using revisions in analyst earnings forecasts, we construct an analyst earnings beta that measures the covariance between the cashflow innovations of an asset and those of the market. A higher analyst earnings beta implies greater sensitivity to marketwide revisions in expected cashflow, and therefore higher systematic risk. Our analyst earnings beta captures exposure to macroeconomic fluctuations and has a positive risk premium that provides a partial explanation for the value premium, size premium, and long-term return reversals. From 1984 to 2005, 55.1% of the return variation across book-to-market, size, and long-term return reversal portfolios is captured by their analyst earnings betas.     

On the relation between predictable market returns and predictable analyst forecast errors

We investigate the relation between predictable market returns and predictable analyst forecast errors. Perfect correlation between predictable components of forecast errors and abnormal returns would lend credence to the view that pricing anomalies are not merely an artifact of inadequately controlled risk. Our evidence implies an imperfect correlation. Moreover, we find that while the predictable component of abnormal returns is significantly associated with future forecast errors, trading strategies based directly on the predictable component of forecast errors are not profitable. Further implications of our findings are that predictable components of analysts’ forecast errors are robust with respect to loss functions and analysts’ earnings forecasts may significantly diverge from the market expectations.